Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dundee Corporation," presented by Secretary Sir John Gilmour; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Thursday 24th November, and to be printed. [Bill 201.]

LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Lerwick Harbour," presented by Secretary Sir John Gilmour; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "MANATAWAY" (CHARGE OF CRUELTY).

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet received a reply to the representations which he has made to the United States Government regarding the case of Mr. Frederick Thomas, a former officer of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, in connection with a charge of cruelty brought against Captain Crowley, of the steamer "Manataway," in which ship Mr. Thomas served as steward?

Captain HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): On receipt of the representations made by His Majesty's Government in this case, the
United States Government caused the matter to be brought before the Federal Grand Jury. The Jury, however, on the evidence submitted to them, refused to indict Captain Crowley. Steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to secure further evidence with a view to the case being reopened.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Does the hon. and gallant Member know the facts of this case?

Captain HACKING: Yes, I know the facts, but I think it would not be desirable at this moment to state the whole of the case, as we hope to get the matter reopened.

Captain EVANS: Do I understand that fresh evidence has been submitted to the United States Government by the Foreign Office?

Captain HACKING: We hope to get further evidence, and we anticipate that we shall be able to get it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Sir JOHN POWER: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further developments have taken place in respect of the future status of Tangier?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): No, Sir. The Franco-Spanish conversations have not yet been concluded.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

SUBSCRIPTIONS (STATES IN ARREARS).

Sir ALFRED KNOX: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any States have defaulted in their subscriptions towards the expenses of the League of Nations; if so, which States; and whether the default has-thrown a greater burden on the British taxpayer?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The following States are in arrears: Bolivia, China, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru. A continued default on the part of these States would eventually increase the burden on the British taxpayer.

Sir A. KNOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any default on the part of these States to pay their contributions has caused any additional expenditure by His Majesty's Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, not up to the present, but continued default on the part of these States would involve additional expenditure by the other States.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: If these States are not sufficiently loyal to the League to pay their contributions, are they likely to be loyal enough to carry out its decisions?

COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has noted the unconditional acceptance by the German Reich of the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice in such disputes and under such conditions as are specified in Article 36 of the statute of that Court; and whether His Majesty's Government will now, in its turn, see its way to accept this jurisdiction?

Mr. PONSONBY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Secretary-General of the League of Nations has forwarded to him, in accordance with the Council's decision, the resolution adopted by the Eighth Assembly of the League on 26th September, urging the use of pacific means for the settlement of disputes of every description; and whether, as a practical way of showing His Majesty's Government's concurrence in this aim, he intends to hasten the acceptance by Great Britain of the optional clause in Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Assembly resolution is now being considered by His Majesty's Government. I can at present add nothing to previous declarations made by His Majesty's Government.

WARS OF AGGRESSION (POLISH RESOLUTION).

Mr. PONSONBY: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the British delegation at the eighth Assembly of the League
of Nations voted for the Polish resolution ordering that war of aggression is an international crime, that all wars of aggression are and shall always be prohibited, and that States members of the League are under an obligation to conform to these principles, and seeing that this resolution, unanimously passed by roll call of the Assembly, has now the binding force of an understanding of international law, was any definition of the term war of aggression reached by the Assembly before passing this resolution; and, if not, can he indicate the nature of the commitment undertaken on behalf of Great Britain by His Majesty's Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No definition of the term "war of aggression" was made by the Assembly. It was pointed out by several speakers that by subscribing to the Polish resolution, no fresh engagement was undertaken, since the undertaking not to wage wars of aggression is implicit in, and, indeed, is the very essence of the Covenant; but it was held that there was value in this solemn re-affirmation of an existing obligation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the words "of aggression" were only put in at the instance of His Majesty's Government, and that in the last Debate the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) said that no definition of these words existed?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; and I think that the Assembly wisely refrained from attempting a definition. It is easier to recognise wars of aggression than to define them. Any attempt to define precisely in advance the tests by which the Council should judge or anyone should judge what a war of aggression is, would only be to frame a trap for what was quite possibly the innocent party.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Do not these words weaken the resolution?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: These words are a solemn re-affirmation of the Covenant as it stands. They are not an amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If we cannot define aggression, what is the use of putting in the words?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a matter for argument. I think it is far wiser not to attempt to define a war of aggression, but to leave the competent authority to decide who is the aggressor when the facts are before them.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHANISTAN.

CONSULAR OFFICERS.

Sir A. KNOX: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what places in Afghanistan the British Government maintains consuls of British nationality; whether the Soviet Republic has any consuls of Russian nationality in Afghanistan; and, if so, where?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There are consular officers of British nationality at Kandahar and Jallabad and Soviet consular officers, who, so far as I know, are Soviet citizens, at Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif and Maimana.

TELEGRAPH LINES.

Sir A. KNOX: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the provisions of the Soviet-Afghan Treaty of 1921 have been carried out, especially as regards the construction of a telegraph line from Khushk via Herat and Kandahar to Kabul, and the payment of an annual subsidy of 1,000,000 gold roubles?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: A telegraph line from Kandahar to Kabul has been opened and another from Khushk to Kandahar is in course of construction and is understood to have reached Farah. My information is insufficient to enable me to reply to the remaining part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

ARMAMENTS (EXPENDITURE).

Sir J. POWER: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can furnish a statement showing the present and the pre-War effective expenditure on armaments by this country and by the principal European countries whose areas have not been very materially altered, together with the present rate of expenditure if corrected to the pre-War value of money in each country?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I could not give any figures which would
be likely to be accepted by all those concerned, nor could I myself take responsibility for any estimates which might be framed.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the estimate that has been made by the Secretariat of the League of Nations, giving this matter in full detail?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Whatever the Secretariat of the League of Nations has published is entitled to all the authority which is due to that source, but I cannot make myself personally responsible for the presentation of an estimate which I could not guarantee.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech made an estimate which differs materially from that published by the League of Nations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That rather confirms what I have said; that no one estimate is likely to command approval by all parties concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

HANKOW.

Mr. LOOKER: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House of the present state of affairs in Hankow as regards the municipal administration of the ex-British concession under the Mixed Chinese and British Council set up by the Chen-O'Malley Agreement, particularly as regards the state of the finances of the area involved, the existence or otherwise of discipline in the police force, the carrying out of the necessary measures of sanitation, and the discharge of the obligations, whether for principal or interest, in respect of the debentures issued by the late British municipality?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: A recent report from His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow shows that, owing largely to the fact that the municipal administration had been forced to accept depreciated currency, its finances had been placed in a precarious situation. From the 3rd August last payment of rates and taxes has been placed on a silver basis, and it is hoped that this measure will help to restore the financial position, but
it cannot be pretended that the financial administration of the area has been above reproach.
During the first few weeks of the new administration the efficiency and discipline of the police were unsatisfactory, but in May energetic efforts were made to effect an improvement, and recent official reports do not indicate that either the state of discipline of the police force or the sanitation of the area furnishes substantial ground for complaint. His Majesty's Consul-General has expressed doubts as to the trustworthiness of the police in the present crisis, but his fears have not so far been realised: the Chinese authorities have drafted special police to the district for its protection bringing the total strength of the force up to 300.
As was stated in my replies on the 6th of July last to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock), the payment of debenture interest due on the 30th June was made in depreciated currency. On representations being made to Mr. Chen at the time, he accepted in principle the obligation to make payment in silver, and the Director undertook that, on the collection of rates and taxes on this basis, sufficient sums should be deposited in a British bank to ensure payment of debenture interest.

Mr. LOOKER: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is the case that the municipality of Hankow is practically in a state of bankruptcy; that the concessions are rapidly becoming derelict for want of a proper authority, and will he undertake to set up some effective form of administration in trust for all parties concerned before it is too late?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I certainly cannot give an undertaking of that kind in reply to a supplementary question. I have answered as to the state of Hankow according to my present information, which does not wholly bear out the description of my hon. Friend.

Mr. LOOKER: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in whom, under the provisions of the Chen-O'Malley Agreement relating to Hankow, the right to appoint and select the director of the municipal bureau is now vested and by whom such appointment has to be confirmed; in whom the right to appoint the
executive secretary of the bureau is now vested, and whose direction and supervision such secretary is now subject to; in whom the right to appoint and control the chief of police is now vested; whether the office of director of the bureau is now filled or vacant; and if any existing authority is now recognised by His Majesty's Government as entitled to exercise the powers of selection and appointment, which the Agreement provides shall be exercised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and of confirmation, which the Agreement provides shall be exercised by the Nationalist Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Article 6 of the Regulations attached to the Hankow Agreement of the 19th February provides that the director shall be appointed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his appointment confirmed by the Nationalist Government; in view of the fact that the regime with which the Agreement was concluded has disappeared, it is at present, as was explained in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power) on the 8th November, uncertain what authority, if any, can be regarded as competent to exercise these functions. Articles 8 and 12 of the Regulations provide that the executive secretary shall be appointed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the nomination of the director and with the approval of the Council and shall be subject to the direction and control of the director; Articles 11 and 12 provide that the chief of police shall be appointed by the director subject to the approval of the Council, and shall be under the control of the director.
As was stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend to which I have already alluded, the director fled on the 26th September and, for the reasons already given, the appointment of a successor has not yet been recognised as in accordance with the Agreement. In the meantime, in accordance with the written request of the outgoing director, the Council is, as an emergency measure, acting as a committee for the exercise of the functions of the director, and on this basis controls and supervises the executive secretary and the chief of police. The question of the right of appointing these officers has not arisen in the present emergency, and I therefore think it undesirable to express any opinion on the subject.

Mr. LOOKER: May I ask whether it is not the case that the machinery created by the Hankow Agreement, which gave the Chinese a greater share in municipal affairs, has completely broken down; that there is no existing authority to appoint fresh members, with the result that there is no administration at all as contemplated by the Agreement, and what steps the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take in the circumstances?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have answered, and I think very fully, my hon. Friend's question, and if he wants to put further questions I must ask him to be good enough to give me notice.

CHANG TSO-LIN (LOANS).

Mr. VIANT: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information respecting two British firms having made two loans to Chang Tso-lin, one of 20,000,000 Mexican dollars, secured by the concession of the exclusive right to build a railroad in Chihli province, and the other 10,000,000 Mexican dollars to be known as the industrial and pasturing loan; and, if such has been arranged, whether these loans have been made with the knowledge and sanction of His Majesty's Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no knowledge of either of these transactions, nor have I any reason to believe that such loans have been arranged. I should be glad if the hon. Member would communicate to me the information on which his question is based so that I may make inquiries into the matter.

BRITISH WARSHIPS.

Mr. WELLOCK: 29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the aircraft-carrier "Hermes" has now been withdrawn from Chinese waters; how long she was stationed in China; how many flights were made over Chinese territory from her decks during her stay in China; and for what purpose these flights were made?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): His Majesty's Ship "Hermes" has returned to England to refit and recommission, and will return to the China Station on completion, probably in January.
She was on the China Station from August, 1925, to February, 1926, and from October, 1926, to September, 1927.
As regards the remainder of the question, flights over Chinese territory were made on nine occasions, eight of which were in connection with Chinese piratical activities or attacks on merchant ships.

Mr. WELLOCK: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the number of British warships of all classes now in Chinese waters; and what number of men of all ranks and marines are carried on board these ships?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The number of British warships now in Chinese waters is:—

5 cruisers.
1 aircraft carrier.
4 sloops.
2 destroyer flotillas (comprising 2 flotilla leaders and 16 destroyers).
1 despatch vessel.
1 submarine tender.
2 submarine depot ships.
12 submarines.
17 river gunboats.
4 armed launches.

The number of officers and men, including marines, comprised in the complements of these ships is 8,550.

ALBANIA (BRITISH LEGATION).

Captain CAZALET: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to keep the British delegation at Durazzo?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Legation in Albania now occupies a house at Durazzo, the present lease of which determines on 11th August, 1928, but can, however, probably be renewed. No suitable house is understood to be availale at Tirana, and it would therefore be necessary for His Majesty's Government to purchase land in the capital and erect a Legation house thereon. This would entail considerable expense which in present circumstances is not justified; but the desirability of ultimately establishing the Legation in Tirana will be kept in mind.

Captain CAZALET: Is it a fact that we are the only nation with its Legation 25 miles from the capital?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There are a good number of our Embassies and Legation houses which are not such as give me satisfaction, but in these days when economy must be observed we can only proceed very slowly and with the most urgent cases.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the rental of the present house?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH EMBASSY, PETROGRAD (LOOTING).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wehther he has any further information with regard to the Embassy plate that was looted from Petrograd?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Information that some silver which may have formed part of the plate belonging to the Petrograd Embassy was about to be sold in Riga was brought to the notice of His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires. Mr. Carr has lodged a provisional claim with the Latvian police authorities, pending the definite identification of the silver in question, which is at present in a Customs warehouse at Riga.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the exact position of this property which was stolen at Petrograd and seized by the authorities of a foreign country for payment of debt?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As to the exact position at the moment, that is the only definition I can give. It is in the Customs House at Riga, but His Majesty's Government have lodged a provisional claim pending definite identification of the property as having been part of that stolen from the Embassy.

GREAT BRITAIN (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS).

Mr. PONSONBY: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the inconvenience and obstruction to international intercourse caused by a rupture of diplomatic relations and the consequent absence from their posts of diplomatic representatives, His Majesty's Government will abandon
this method of expressing disapproval of the action of a foreign Government and permit the resumption of their normal functions by the diplomatic missions?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The rupture of diplomatic relations clearly causes inconvenience, but there are occasions, happily rare, when this inconvenience is inevitable, namely, when a State has so abused those relations that the continued presence of its official representatives can no longer serve a useful purpose.

Mr. PONSONBY: In a case where there are strained relations between the countries and grave matters in dispute, is it not all the more necessary to have diplomatic missions to the respective Governments?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It entirely depends upon what purpose those diplomatic missions have.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the relations are likely to become more strained if these so-called diplomatic representatives used their diplomatic status to plot against a country?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

CONSULAR POSTS, PERSIA (INDIANS).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the cost of His Majesty's Legation and Consulates in Persia is shared by the Imperial and Indian Governments; how many British Consular posts in Persia are maintained by the Indian Government; whether Indians are eligible for appointment to these posts; and what effect has the maintenance of this joint financial responsibility for diplomatic and Consular representation upon the relations between Britain and Persia?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Consular posts staffed by officers of the Government of India are those at Bushire, Meshed, Bandar Abbas, Kerman, Seistan, Moham-merah, Birjand and Duzdap. Indians are eligible for appointment to these posts. So far as I am aware, Anglo-Persian relations are not in any way affected by the present arrangements for financing diplomatic and Consular posts in Persia.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman just answer me quite plainly without any lengthy statement, whether the Indians who are jointly responsible with us are upon an equal footing so far as we are concerned in this matter? Does the right hon. Gentleman know English?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite sure that I understand the hon. Member's question. I would be obliged if he would put it on the Paper.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is on the Paper. You will see, Mr. Speaker, that the question which I have put is on the Paper and in English.

Mr. SPEAKER: To which part is the hon. Member referring?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The part which asks:
Whether Indians are eligible for appointment to these posts; and what effect has the maintenance of this joint financial responsibility for diplomatic and Consular representation upon the relations between Britain and Persia?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My answer, which I hope was also in English, is explicit on both points. Indians are eligible for these posts. So far as I am aware, Anglo-Persian relations are not in any way affected by the present arrangements for financing the diplomatic and Consular posts in Persia.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: How many Indians have been appointed to these posts?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer without notice.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: If I give the right hon. Gentleman notice, will he obtain the information?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PERSONNEL AND ADMIRALTY STAFF.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the number of the Admiralty headquarters staff and the total numbers serving under the Admiralty command in 1914 and at the present time?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The figures for 1st August, 1914, are 2,072 and 215,331, respectively, and for 1st October, 1927, 3,195 and
172,724. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman's answer periodically is always rather unsatisfactory, will he make determined efforts to cut down the staff in the same proportion as the Fleet, compared with 1914?

Following are the details:

The total civilian and naval staff (including messengers and charwomen) employed at the Admiralty on the 1st August, 1914, numbered 2,072. On the 1st October, 1927, the number was 3,195.

The personnel of the Navy on the 15th July, 1914, numbered 146,047. On the 1st November, 1927, the number was 102,709.

The total civilian staff employed in all Admiralty establishments at home and abroad, including Admiralty headquarters, numbered 71,204 on the 1st August, 1914, and on the 1st October, 1927, the number was 72,952.

The figures comprise the following:


—
1st August, 1914.
1st October, 1927.


Non-Industrial Staff—




Headquarters
1,920
2,937*


Elsewhere
3,586
5,980


Industrial Staff
65,698
64,035


Total
71,204
72,952


* The figure 2,841 given in the details circulated in the Official Report of 16th February, 1927, Columns 911–912 should read 2,941.

BATTLESHIPS (AIRCRAFT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the new battleships, His Majesty's Ship "Nelson" and His Majesty's Ship "Rodney," and the new county class cruisers carry aircraft or are to carry them?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: These ships do not at present carry aircraft but will be fitted with catapults later. "Nelson" and "Rodney" will each carry two aircraft and the county class cruisers one aircraft each.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What is the reason for the delay in fitting the ships that are completed?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would like notice of that question.

CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that provision was made in the current Navy Estimates for the laying down of three new cruisers, one at Devonport Dockyard, he will state whether arrangements are being made for the laying down of these cruisers this year?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The cruiser allocated to Devonport will be ordered before the end of the financial year. The Government have decided that, in the light of the situation disclosed at the recent Geneva Naval Conference, it is not necessary or desirable to proceed with the laying down of the other two ships this year.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: With regard to the ship which is to be laid down at Devonport, may I ask when it will be laid down actually and when the work will be commenced?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member knows that the provision in the Estimates was only sufficient to allow these three cruisers to be begun at the end of the financial year. It will be near the end of the financial year before this ship will be laid down.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is no urgency at all about this matter?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Where are the engines of this cruiser to be made 1 Are we to get a share in the machinery?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many cruisers, other than battle-cruisers, were under construction for His Majesty's Navy, other than for His Majesty's Dominions Navies, in each of the years 1911, 1912 and 1913?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The figures as at 1st November in each of the years mentioned are as follow:

1911
6


1912
10


1913
19

DESTROYERS (MAINTENANCE RESERVE SCHEME).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many destroyers have already been sent or are under orders to go to Rosyth; from which ports have they been or will they be drawn; and how many it is intended to leave at Devonport, Portsmouth and Chatham, respectively, exclusive of the two which are manned at each port for emergency purposes?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: 24 destroyers have already been sent to Rosyth in connection with the Maintenance Reserve scheme, and a further 11 vessels are under orders to proceed there as soon as necessary refit work on them has been completed; of these 35, 15 were drawn from Devonport, nine from Chatham, eight from Portsmouth and three were formerly based on Port Edgar.
In addition, a further two vessels ("Torbay" and "Toreador") from Portsmouth will probably be sent to Rosyth.
The vessels which will eventually remain at the three southern ports, excluding those actually employed as emergency destroyers, and as tenders to training establishments, are as follow—
Devonport, 3. (This number does not include the three destroyers employed in Irish waters which use Devonport as a base for refit, etc.)
Portsmouth, 3.
Nore, 3.
At the Nore there will also be four destroyers and six or seven flotilla leaders held in maintenance reserve.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many reserve destroyers are now stationed at Rosyth dockyard and the number of naval ratings sent to keep them in order; and whether any local men have been engaged for this class of work?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: 24 of the 35 destroyers to be placed in Maintenance Reserve at Rosyth have already arrived.
346 naval ratings will be allotted to keep the 35 vessels in order. No civilian workmen will be employed on this duty but six additional local men have been engaged to work the caissons, etc., whilst the destroyers are being received and berthed.

Mr. KELLY: Is this a departure from the Admiralty practice—that is, the employment of naval ratings on this work as against civilian labour?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, it is not anything of the kind. Generally, it is considered right that sailors should look after ships.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman really mean to say that it is less than seven per ship?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The hon. Member can calculate that as well as I can.

DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGES).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any plan has been drawn up by the Admiralty which would have the effect for a period of years of reducing the present establishment in His Majesty's dockyards; and whether, in the interests of the towns concerned, he can make a statement on the subject in order that they may know what obligations may be cast upon their finding employment for the discharged men and in making prospective arrangements for housing accommodation and other matters?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The reply is in the negative. The hon. Member was present when the whole matter was discussed fully with me last week at a deputation from Portsmouth and Plymouth and I have nothing now to add.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would be of great assistance to the municipality of Plymouth, if they could have some indication of what the plans of the Admiralty are likely to be, particularly in view of the curtailment of the shipbuilding programme?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As the hon. Member knows from the reply to the deputation, of which he was an attentive member, I should be very glad if it were possible to stabilise work in the dockyards. A consistent programme of naval construction is the best way of stabilising it; until that is settled it is not very easy to do so.

OFFICERS (PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATURE).

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of LIEUT.-COMMANDER KENWORTHY:—
22. To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the recent Fleet Order against officers on the Reserve or half-pay becoming candidates for Parliament applies also to officers who are peers; and whether these peers will be permitted by the Admiralty to retain their commissions if they sit and vote in another place?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I notice that in this question I have left out some words. It refers to the whole circular and not only to the part mentioned.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In reply to the first part of the question, the Fleet Order deals only with candidature for Parliament, and gives effect, so far as the Navy is concerned, to the provisions of the Servants of the Crown (Parliamentary Candidature) Order in Council of 25th July last. Officers who are peers could not become candidates for Parliament unless they are Irish peers, in which case the Fleet Order applies to them. As regards the second part of the question, no necessity has arisen for any new rule that would prevent officers on the active list who are peers from taking part, to the same extent as hitherto, in the proceedings of the other House. It has long been the tradition that they do not take part in political controversy.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that he is here making a difference between another place and this House and is preventing a commoner from engaging in politics, while permitting a peer to do so?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the salaries of these officers be voted in another place or by this House?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me there are too many supplementary questions. I would ask hon. Members to think of their colleagues. It is rather unfair to take so much time over the earlier questions on the Paper.

Mr. THOMAS: May I ask in fairness to the importance of the question and the supplementary question, whether the
simple issue is not, if a preference is to be given to peers over commoners? That is a simple question, and we are entitled to an answer.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: All I said was that what we have done has been to carry out, so far as the Navy is concerned, the Order in Council of 25th July last. The Admiralty is not responsible solely for that Order in Council, but we have had to give effect to it, as it stands, as regards the Navy.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Order in Council was smuggled through this House just before the holidays, and no one was aware of it? What notice was given to Parliament in regard to this profound change in the constitution of Parliament?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was at Geneva on 25th July last, and therefore I have no knowledge of that. I should like notice of this question, and indeed I think it is not one which should properly be addressed to the Admiralty at all.

Mr. THOMAS: Does not the Government's legislation, which interferes with civil servants taking part in politics, justify, in itself, a reconsideration of the whole position?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a general Order in Council, and questions upon it should be addressed to the Prime Minister and not to the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Mr. THOMAS: I accept that and will, myself, give notice of a question.

Mr. AMMON: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty in what respect the restrictions on the political activities of officers and men in the Royal Navy are altered by the Fleet Order issued in August last as compared with those prior to that date; and whether the order applies equally to officers and men on the active list as to those on the half-pay list and to retired officers and officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve when called up for service?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The general effect of the Fleet Order is to provide that officers on the active list and men serving on an active service naval engagement
may not become candidates for Parliament until they have been released from their active service obligations. In the case of an officer, this involves retirement or resignation, and in the case of a man, transfer to the Royal Fleet Reserve or acceptance of a free discharge. Previously the position on the active list of an officer or man was not affected unless his candidature was successful, in which case, if an officer he was placed on half-pay, and if a man was given the option already mentioned. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. AMMON: Is the position of officers and men of the Navy in this respect fixed by Statute Law or simply by order of the Department?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. AMMON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in that case, whether it is right that this should be done without consultation with Parliament?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have already pointed out that this is not a matter which affects the Admiralty only. I have tried to make clear that what we have done has been in order to try to carry out, as regards the Navy, a general Order-in-Council.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has any change been made in regard to the right, of officers or men of the Navy to participate in other political activities, not actually standing for Parliament, such as attending meetings during a General Election or voting?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to have a definition of "other political activities" before attempting to answer that question.

Commander BELLAIRS: As the Order is being applied to half-pay officers, has the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown been taken as to whether half-pay officers are employed by and under the Crown?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I have an answer to my question? I mean by "other political activities" attending public meetings and voting. I do not
want to press the right hon. Gentleman if he is not sure.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid that I cannot give any further information in answer to these questions. If I tried to give further information, I might not be quite accurate, and I should be sorry if that were so.

PUNISHMENTS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any complaints have been received through the welfare committees with regard to excessive punishment on board any of the ships in the Royal Navy; whether he will state what precautions are observed to prevent dissatisfaction arising in the Navy following numerous punishments; and if all punishment lists are examined by the Admiral of the Fleet or other superior officer at frequent intervals?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Matters affecting discipline are outside the province of welfare conferences. But the Regulations provide a procedure whereby any person who considers that he has been unjustly punished may appeal to superior authority. Records of all punishments are examined quarterly by the Admiral under whose orders the ships are.

MESSRS. VICKERS, LIMITED (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).

Mr. BROMLEY: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his Department has received any complaints from the Boilermakers' Trade Union as to breaches of the Fair Wages Clause in the case of members of the union on the part of Messrs. Vickers, Limited, Barrow-in-Furness, for working a certain class of steel rivets during the construction of His Majesty's Ship "Cumberland"; and if he will inquire into the matter with a view to removing the complaint?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Complaints were made as stated by the hon. Member and a deputation was received by me. After due inquiry and consideration the conclusion was reached that Messrs. Vickers were not infringing the Fail-Wages Clause in their contract.

Mr. BROMLEY: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean after inquiries had been made from the firm?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I had a deputation before me, and they stated the case, and, on the evidence, we came to that conclusion.

MR. J. LAVERICK, STOCKTON-ON-TEES (GRATUITY).

Miss WILKINSON: 28.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will make inquiries in the case of Mr. J. Laverick, of 15, Beaumont Street, Stockton-on-Tees, No. B. 5649 Royal Fleet Reserve, who was refused his Royal Fleet Reserve gratuity on the ground that as a member of the 2nd Portsmouth battalion he was implicated in the disturbance at Newport in 1921; whether he is aware that Mr. Laverick arrived at Newport after the disturbance had started, and that at the official inquiry he was exonerated; and if, in the circumstances, he will authorise the payment to Mr. Laverick, who served through the War, having the 1914 Star and bar, the money apparently due in respect of his gratuity?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Inquiries will be made, and if the facts prove to he as now stated, the question of this man's Royal Fleet Reserve gratuity will be reviewed.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "SUFFOLK" (PAINTING).

Mr. KELLY: 31.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether naval ratings were engaged in painting work on His Majesty's Ship "Suffolk"; if so, what number were so engaged; and what is the reason for this departure in carrying on the work at Portsmouth dockyard?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Yes, Sir, in accordance with the normal practice when a ship is in commission for trials. I have no information as to the precise number of men who have been thus employed.

Mr. KELLY: Are we to understand that it has been the normal practice of the Portsmouth yard to engage this kind of labour?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Yes, the practice is as I have stated.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ELLAND DIVISION.

Mr. ROBINSON: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed on the books of the Employment Exchanges in the Elland Division of Yorkshire on 1st October, 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively; and the number at present in receipt of covenanted benefit, extended benefit, and those who are unemployed but receiving no benefit?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): Statistics are available only in respect of the Employment Exchange at Brighouse and branch offices at Elland and Greetland. The numbers of persons on the registers at these offices were 2,233 at 5th October, 1925, 3,586 at 4th October, 1926, and 1,258 at 3rd October, 1927. Of the 1,258 on the registers at 3rd October, 1927, approximately 850 were in receipt of benefit, but I cannot say how many were receiving standard and extended benefit, respectively.

STATISTICS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed for the latest available date, and the number for the corresponding period last year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The total number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at 5th November, 1927, was 1,111,700, as compared with 1,562,959 at 8th November, 1926. The figure for November, 1926, was affected by the dispute in the coal mining industry but is exclusive of persons in that industry who were disqualified for unemployment benefit by reason of the dispute.

BUILDING TRADE.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour the increase in the number of persons registered in the building industry between 1st July, 1926, and 1st July, 1927, together with the increase in the number actually at work on both dates?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The estimated number of insured persons classi-
fied as belonging to the building trade in Great Britain was 833,940 at July, 1927, as compared with 789,560 at July, 1926. The number of such workers recorded as unemployed at 20th June, 1927, was 52,112, as compared with 68,191 at 21st June, 1926. There was thus an increase in the numbers in employment of approximately 60,000.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour how many building operatives were registered as unemployed on 1st May and 10th November, or the latest date for which figures are available?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 24th October last, 93,190 persons in Great Britain classified as belonging to the building industry were recorded as unemployed, as compared with 58,465 at 25th April, 1927.

Mr. WILLIAMS: How far does the right hon. Gentleman attribute this increase in unemployment to the change in housing policy in this country?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will put any questions on that point to the Minister of Health,, but, to prevent misunderstanding, I should say that more than half—about five-eighths—in many cases of those who are recorded as unemployed do not belong to the ordinary five or six skilled categories of building labour which most people generally class under that term.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—

Mr. SPEAKER: I really must ask hon. Members to consider their colleagues.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 48.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed building workers in Glasgow at present and the number of craftsmen included in that number?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 24th October the number of insured workpeople in the building trade in the Glasgow area recorded as unemployed was 2,450. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement analysing this figure by occupations.

Following is the statement:


Insured workpeople in the building trade in the Glasgow area* recorded as unemployed at 24th October, 1927:


Occupation.
Number.


Carpenters
104


Bricklayers
11


Masons (including monumental masons)
140


Slaters
18


Plasterers
10


Painters
557


Plumbers
134


Labourers to above
677


All other occupations
799


Total
2,450


* Area comprises: Bridgeton, Finnieston, Glasgow, Glasgow (south side), Govan, Kinning Park, Kirkintilloch,, Maryhill, Parkhead, Partick, Rutherglen and Springburn.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 49.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed building workers in England at present and the number for the same period last year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of insured workpeople classified as belonging to the building trade in England recorded as unemployed at 24th October, 1927, was 79,314 as compared with 72,754 at 25th October, 1926.

Mr. STEPHEN: 66.
asked the Minister of Labour how many plasterers are registered as at present unemployed in Glasgow?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 24th October last nine plasterers were recorded as unemployed in the building trade in the Glasgow area.

MINERS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour how many miners were registered as unemployed at Edlington, Rossington, Stainforth, Hatfield, Thorne, Askern, and Doncaster on 10th November or the last date for which figures are available?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 24th October, 1927, the numbers of insured persons classified as belonging to the coal mining industry recorded as unemployed
were 7,117 at Doncaster, including Edlington, Rossington, Stainforth and Hatfield, 1,274 at Thorne and 77 at Askern.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two of the colliery companies are at present importing large numbers of men from Durham and elsewhere, when they are unable to find work for their own people in the area, and will he ask the Employment Exchanges to communicate with them and ask them not to persist in what they are doing?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that as a rule when Employment Exchanges are asked to supply men they find out, first of all, if labour of the description asked for is available in the locality. On the other hand, if the particular descriptions which are asked for are not available locally, they try to supply what they are asked for. I may say also that we try to view the mining question as a whole and as one which quite essentially ought not to be cut up into water-tight compartments between districts.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in this particular area, where there are over 7,000 mine workers unemployed and 10,000 on short time, miners are still being imported from other districts, which increases the hardship both for the imported men and for those who live in the district?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will communicate any information to me which he thinks I ought to consider in connection with trying to draft unemployed miners from one place to another, I will gladly consider it. I have given him the general principles on which we do it, and I would state again that in order to try to improve the state of affairs in the mining industry generally, we ought to consider the country primarily as a whole.

Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in spite of this huge number of unemployed, amounting to over 7,000 in the Doncaster district alone, people have not only been sent down to get work, but sent down by Employment Exchanges, from Durham and elsewhere, with full knowledge of the huge army of unemployed existing round about Doncaster?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have asked hon. Members to communicate any information to me which bears on the subject.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does that mean that the Government's idea of the mobility of labour means scab labour?

Sir J. NALL: May I ask whether there is still to be liberty in this country to people to move from one place to another if they wish?

Mr. GRUNDY: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons at present working at the mines (surface and underground), the number unemployed, and the number in receipt of the unemployment insurance benefits?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The estimated number of insured persons in the coal mining industry is about 1,198,800. On 24th October the number of such persons recorded as unemployed was 223,691, of whom 133,912 were wholly unemployed and 89,779 temporarily stopped. The balance of 975,109 includes persons who were sick or for other reasons were not actually at work though not recorded as unemployed. According to the returns made to the Mines Department the number of wage earners on the colliery books on 29th October was 982,504, but this number is not precisely comparable with the number of insured persons. I am unable to state the number who were in receipt of benefit. Separate figures for surface and underground workers are not available.

Mr. GRUNDY: Is it not possible to tell us how many were receiving unemployment insurance out of the number of unemployed miners?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If I were able to get the information without an undue amount of labour, I would give it, but the tabulation of unemployed in industries is done from a separate lot of figures from the ordinary unemployment benefit figures, and it could not be done without an intolerable amount of labour.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware that unemployment benefit has been refused to Luke Coats, 2, Yeomans Road, Sheffield, box 15, book No. 138,391, class 194/6, on the grounds
that he was not making reasonable effort to find employment; whether he is aware that this man ceased work in June, 1926, after seven years' continuous employment with Messrs. Hollingworth and Pickard, and that he is a motor driver, handyman, and rough joiner, and has produced letters of prospective employment from several employers; and whether inquiry will be made into this case;
(2) whether he is aware that unemployment benefit has been refused to Leonard Gadd, 38, Burton Street, on the ground that he is not making reasonable effort to find employment; that several letters have been produced to the Sheffield Guardians showing that repeated attempts have been made to secure employment and interviews taken plane; that this man of 23 has tramped to Leeds and other places and back in fruitless efforts to find work; and whether further inquiry can be made into the case;
(3) whether he is aware that unemployment benefit has been refused to George B. Cauldwell, 967, Penistone Road, Sheffield, box 33, book No. 144,364, class 20/2, on the ground that insurable employment is not available; that this man of 64 years of age has recently been in regular employment as a wheelwright at Bridge Foundry, Rotherham, ceasing work on 3rd September, 1927; and, seeing that he has every prospect of restarting work any day, can he state why it is that this decision has been arrived at?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have had inquiries instituted into the cases referred to in these question, and will communicate with the hon. Member regarding each case as soon as possible.

Mr. WELLOCK: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the respective number of persons who have applied for benefit and who have been refused benefit, and the reasons for the refusal, at the Stourbridge, Oldbury, and Cradley Heath exchanges during the first nine months of the current year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: During the period 28th December, 1926, to 26th September, 1927, the number of claims to benefit, including repeat claims from the same individuals, made at the employment exchanges named was 29,259, of which 6,679 were made at Stour-
bridge, 5,460 at Oldbury, and 17,120 at Cradley Heath. During the nine months ended 10th October, 1927, out of 12,920 applications for extended benefit considered by the local committees at these exchanges, 2,907were recommended by the

APPLICATIONS for Extended Benefit considered by the Local Committees at Stourbridge, Oldbury and Cradley Heath, during the nine months ended 10th October, 1927.


—
Stourbridge.
Oldbury.
Cradley Heath.


Applications considered by Committees during period
3,952
2,678
6,290


Applications admitted by Committees during period
3,237
2,096
4,680


Applications recommended for disallowance during period:—





Not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment.
12
12
10


Insurable employment not likely to be available
8
2
24


Not a reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years.
249
171
395


Not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment or not willing to accept suitable employment.
105
97
146


Single persons residing with relatives
198
115
164


Married women who could look for support from their husbands.
7
45
141


Married men who could look for support from their wives.
—
4
—


Working short time but earning sufficient for maintenance.
136
131
730


Aliens
—
1
—


Postponed for a definite time
—
4
—


Total recommended for disallowance
715
582
1,610

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 47.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons who applied for unemployment benefit in the city of Birmingham during the past two months and the number refused; and the number of men and women, respectively?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply involves a number of figures in tabular form, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

During the nine weeks ended 31st October, 1927, 30,896 claims to bene-


APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENDED BENEFIT considered by Local Committees in the Birmingham Area during the two months ended 10th October, 1927.


—
Men.
Boys.
Women.
Girls.
Total.


Applications considered
12,131
68
2,309
41
14,549


Applications recommended for—







Allowance
10,845
38
881
16
11,780


Disallowance
1,286
30
1,428
25
2,769

committees for disallowance. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the reasons for disallowance. Corresponding figures for standard benefit claims are not available.

Following is the statement:

fit, including repeat claims by the same individuals, were made at employment exchanges in the Birmingham area, of which 21,312 were made by men, 7,422 by women, and 2,162 by juveniles. During the two months ended 10th October, 1927, 14,549 applications for extended benefit were considered by local committees in that area, of which 11,780 were recommened for allowance and 2,769 for disallowance. Corresponding statistics in respect of claims for standard benefit are not available. The following statement gives separate figures regarding the decisions on the claims for extended benefit of men, women and juveniles:

Mr. W. M. WATSON: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims to unemployment benefit disallowed in the Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy districts of Fife from the beginning of the year to the latest available date; how many were from male and female claimants;

* APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENDED BENEFIT considered by the Local Committees in the Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy areas during the period 7th January to 10th October, 1927.


—
Dunfermline District.
Kirkcaldy District.



Men.
Women.
Juveniles.
Total.
Men.
Women.
Juveniles.
Total.


Applications considered by Committees during period.
9,234
755
393
10,382
4,568
324
234
5,126


Applications admitted by Committees during period.
8,109
507
297
8,913
3,964
167
103
4,234


Applications recommended for disallowance during period—










Not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment.
33
13
5
51
32
27
4
63


Insurable employment not likely to be available.
68
8
1
77
29
6
1
36


Not a reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years.
450
34
3
487
295
1
2
298


Not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment or not willing to accept suitable employment.
444
83
18
545
80
34
24
138


Single persons residing with relatives.
105
78
63
246
124
79
96
299


Married women who could look for support from their husbands.
—
1
—
1
—
—
—
—


Married men who could look for support from their wives.
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
2


Working short time but earning sufficient for maintenance.
11
15
—
26
2
9
—
11


Postponed for a definite time.
14
16
6
36
40
1
4
45


Total recommended for disallowance during period.
1,125
248
96
1,469
604
157
131
892


* Statistics of the number of individuals concerned in these applications are not available nor can figures be given showing the number of applications for Standard Benefit disallowed.

Mr. GIBBINS: 65.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been refused benefit in the city of Liverpool for the three months ended 31st October, 1927, and the reasons for such refusal; and, if any have been refused benefit for not accepting employment, the nature and conditions of the work offered?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply involves a number of figures in tabular form, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

and the grounds upon which the claims were disallowed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Following is the reply:

Out of 40,808 applications for extended benefit considered by the local committees in the Liverpool area during the period 12th July, to 10th October, 1927, 34,348 were recommended for allowance and 6,460 for disallowance. The following statement shows the reasons for such disallowances. Statistics regarding the disallowance of applications for standard benefit are not available.

As regards the last part of the question, it is not practicable to give this information.


Applications* for extended benefit recommended for disallowance by local committees in the Liverpool area during the period 12th July to 10th October, 1927.


Reasons for disallowance.
Number of applications recommended for disallowance.


Not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment
412


Insurable employment not likely to be available
111


Not a reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years
3,453


Not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment or not willing to accept suitable employment
1,366


Single persons residing with relatives
639


Married women who could look for support from their husbands
85


Married men who could look for support from their wives
3


Working short time but earning sufficient for maintenance
370


Postponed for a definite time
21


Total recommended for disallowance
6,460


* Statistics showing the number of separate individuals concerned in these applications are not available.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 68.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that James Haggerty, of 110, Queen Street, Govan, has been refused benefit by the Govan Employment Exchange on the ground that the committee consider he has failed to prove that he is making every reasonable effort to obtain employment suited to his capacities and is will-
ing to accept such employment (Clause 4, U.1. 503); that Haggerty's record of employment from April, 1927, has been from 28th April to 24th June with Barclay, Curie, and Company, Govan; from 28th June to 13th July with Cochrane, Morgan, and Company, Govan; from 18th July to 17th October with Barclay, Curie, and Company, Govan; that his record of stamps for 1927 is 1/27 24 stamps, 2/27 16 stamps, a total of 40 stamps for 45 weeks; whether he will make an inquiry to see if some mistake has been made in this case; or whether, seeing that Haggerty accepted employment during the Glasgow holiday week, and is therefore making reasonable efforts to obtain and is willing to accept employment, he will have this case reconsidered?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having inquiries made in this case, and I will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

DOCK LABOUR (DECASUALISATION).

Mr. LUMLEY: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour when he expects to receive the Report of the Committee on the Decasualisation of Dock Labour?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In the two Reports made by the Committee in 1924 the establishment or revision of registration schemes at the principal ports was recommended as a preliminary to further measures. The Committee remain in being and are kept informed of the progress of these schemes, but further experience of their working is necessary before the Committee can be in a position to make additional recommendations.

KINNING PARK EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, GLASGOW.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory condition of the Kinning Park Employment Exchange, Glasgow whether he is aware that these conditions arise from the structural defects of the building, which cannot be remedied; and will he be prepared to consider the advisability of obtaining new premises in the vicinity?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The question of providing other accommodation in this case is under consideration.

SUGAR REFINING INDUSTRY.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in the sugar-refining industry at Greenock, Liverpool, and Silvertown for the months of October 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively?

Mr. BARNES: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed in the British sugar-refining industry, excluding beet-sugar factories, in October 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that separate statistics of the numbers insured and the numbers unemployed in the sugar-refining industry are not available.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the advisability of issuing some official statement on this matter after making allowance for the number of men who have been employed in agriculture?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The trouble is that one cannot sub-divide the occupations too much. Otherwise, one gets an interminable list. Here we have got a classification for other food industries of which beet-sugar is a comparatively small part.

Mr. HENDERSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention not been called to a statement made by the Council of Greenock giving the number of unemployed through the action of the Government?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will give it to me.

Mr. HAYES: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked the sugar refiners as to the number of men they have stopped or intend stopping?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Gentleman will give me any information he has received, I shall be glad to go into it.

DOMESTIC SERVICE (ALIENS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour generally the reasons and under what circumstances between three and four thousand alien women received permits during the past two years in order to take up domestic service in this
country; and whether there were no unemployed British women who would have been eligible to undertake the employment given to this large number of aliens?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Permits to bring to this country alien women domestic servants are issued only when the employer shows that he has made every possible effort to find suitable labour without success. There is still a large unsatisfied demand for resident domestic servants and no unemployed British woman who is qualified and willing to undertake this work need remain out of a situation for long.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the last paragraph in the question? Of the considerable number of British unemployed women, were none of them eligible to take these 4,000 places that were given to foreigners?

Miss WILKINSON: If there are so many posts for resident domestic servants, why has the right hon. Gentleman cut down the grant for training women in this work?

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are very large numbers of unemployed young-men to be found in the residential parts of the West End of London?

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. CONNOLLY: 59.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in the cases of Government trainees whose first period of employment after training is short-termed, any second attempt is made to replace them in employment; and whether, having regard to the importance of ascertaining the net results of Government training, any records or data regarding the permanence of employment secured by Government-trained men, women and boys are available to Members of this House?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Records are being kept, so far as possible, with a view to ascertaining whether the employment obtained by young unemployed men after training is permanent, but the training scheme has not yet been long enough in operation to furnish reliable data. As regards women, the information available from one or two of the training centres is that a substantial proportion of the
women who enter domestic service or a kindred occupation after training remain in it. I am considering whether to arrange for obtaining fuller information, which would, of course, entail some additional expense.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons receiving training from his Department at the present time and the number at the same date last year; and the sums expended on these dates?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of young unemployed men in training at the end of October was 1,115. The corresponding figure last year was 1,097. Expenditure from the beginning of each financial year to the end of October was £55,684 and £55,432, respectively.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (TRADE UNION MEETINGS).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 61.
asked the Minister of Labour how many trade union branches hold their regular branch meetings in Employment Exchange offices; whether any and, if so, what rent is charged for the holding of such meetings; and whether any applications to hold such meetings have been refused and, if so, for what reasons?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This matter is dealt with locally, as a rule, under General Rules, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, and I regret, therefore, the information asked for in the first and last parts of the question could not be given without special inquiry. I may say, however, that a considerable number of branch meetings are held on Exchange premises, and, in what I believe are the rare cases in which permission to hold a meeting is refused, accommodation being available, the reason is one of those set out in paragraph 5 of the General Rules. The ordinary charge per meeting is 2s. 6d. or 1s., according to the nature of the accommodation available.

ENGINEERS, GLASGOW.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 69.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of1 engineers who are registered in Glasgow as unemployed at the last available date; the similar figure at the same date during the last two years; and whether
any of the men in the Government training centres are being trained as engineers?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of insured persons classified as belonging to the engineering and motor vehicle industries recorded as unemployed in the Glasgow area at 24th October, 1927, was 6,028 as compared with 16,641 at 25th October, 1926, and with 12,734 at 26th October, 1925. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

YOUNG PERSONS, GLASGOW.

Mr. WHEATLEY: 70.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of boys and girls leaving school in Glasgow during the last three years who so far have been unable to find employment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Mr. WHEATLEY: 71.
asked the Minister of Labour the number in Glasgow of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 who are registered as unemployed; the number of young men and women, respectively, between the ages of 18 and 21 at the last available date; and the number of those who have been unemployed for 12 months or more?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 24th October, 1927, the number of insured persons aged 16 and 17 years recorded as unemployed in the Glasgow area was 1,454 of whom 851 were boys and 603 girls. I regret that I am unable to state the number of uninsured persons of these ages registered as unemployed or to give the information asked for in the remainder of the right hon. Member's question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the importance of securing these figures for the discussion of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, in order to see the number affected by the Bill, cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to secure the numbers idle at these ages?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I said if I can get the information I will gladly let the right hon. Gentleman have it. So far as I am aware, the percentage for young men is probably rather lower than the average for males as a whole,
and the average for young women is just about the same—possibly a little more—as for women generally.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (TRAINING SCHEME).

Viscount SANDON: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour in view of the fact that the State training scheme for Empire emigrants run by his Department costs 53s. a week per youth, and that the Salvation Army scheme costs 30s., what extra advantages lie in the State scheme to account and compensate for the additional cost; and whether he has considered contracting out this work at a lesser cost to such Voluntary societies as are prepared so to tender?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand the figures quoted are not comparable as regards the items of cost included or as regards the age of the persons trained and the extent of the training. I understand that it is open to any voluntary society which can undertake training for overseas to apply to the Overseas Settlement Department for a grant in aid under the Empire Settlement Act.

Viscount SANDON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give particulars of what the differences are? I mean, will he publish them at some time?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will communicate with me, I will make inquiries and see in what form any particulars can be given.

Mr. LOOKER: Have not the Salvation Army activities in promoting Empire settlement been extraordinarily successful, and do they not pay great attention to training the men, placing them in responsible positions, and looking after them afterwards; and cannot the right hon. Gentleman take greater advantage of it?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put those questions down.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the cost of the training of men prior to migration overseas under the scheme administered by his Department as compared with the cost of training soldiers under the similar scheme administered by the War Office?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not sure that comparable figures can be-obtained, but I am inquiring into the matter and will communicate the result to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain CROOKSHANK: May I ask my right hon. Friend if his training advisers are taking advantage of the experience gained by the Army vocational training?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, they are in communication one with another.

Mr. HAYES: 60.
asked the Minister of Labour how many applications have been received during the past 12 months at Merseyside Employment Exchanges from unemployed men for training with a view to taking up employment on the land in Australia, Canada, etc.; the number of applications rejected; and whether applicants are informed of the grounds upon, which rejection is made?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 128 unemployed men have applied at the Merseyside Exchanges in the last 12 months for training for settlement in Australia. Eleven withdrew their applications and 57 were not accepted by the Dominion authorities. Eighty-two unemployed men have applied for training for settlement in Canada. Ten withdrew their applications and 16 were not accepted By the Dominion authorities. The decision as to suitability for training for settlement overseas rests with the representatives of the Dominion Governments and these authority do not normally disclose the reasons for their decisions.

Mr. HAYES: In the event of rejection taking place on account of suggestions that men are not suitable, in the sense that they have not been genuinely seeking work, might the applicant not have an opportunity of hearing the evidence against him?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not know on what grounds the Dominion authorities reject applicants. As far as I know, generally it is on physical grounds.

Mr. PALING: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that all applicants not rejected have either proceeded to a training centre or will be given facilities to go?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As a matter of fact, all those not rejected were admitted to the training centre.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Would it not be better to see whether these men are physically fit before they go for training?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is what is done.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When are these men submitted for examination to the Dominion authorities?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: They are submitted to the Dominion authorities before they go to the training centres.

The following Table shows the estimated numbers of persons in certain industries in Great Britain insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and the numbers of such persons recorded as unemployed at certain dates in 1925, 1926 and 1927 respectively.


Industry.
1925.
1926.
1927.


Estimated numbers insured at July.
Number of insured persons unemployed at 22nd June.
Difference.
Estimated numbers insured at July.
Number of insured persons unemployed at 21st June.*
Difference.*
Estimated numbers insured at July.
Number of insured persons unemployed at 20th June.
Difference.


Construction and repair of motor vehicles, cycles and aircraft.
212,590
11,974
200,616
221,810
22,056
199,754
230,970
12,638
218,332


Silk
46,550
2,956
43,594
50,820
5,565
45,255
55,040
3,268
51,772


Lace
19,500
3,377
16,123
18,880
3,750
15,130
18,170
1,403
16,767


Musical instruments.
21,630
1,266
20,364
24,380
3,996
20,384
24,700
2,073
22,627


*The figures for June, 1926, are affected by the increase of unemployment due to the general stoppage in the coal mining industry.


The columns headed "Difference" would include at each date a number of persons who were not actually at work as a result of sickness, or holidays, or unrecorded unemployment.

AGRICULTURE (POLICY).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will take an early opportunity of announcing a definite policy to stay the growing depression in the agricultural industry?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Government fully appreciates the difficulty through which the agricultural industry is passing, but I would remind my hon. Friend that those difficulties are by no means confined to the industry in this country alone. The difficulties with which the industry is at present faced are very largely attribut-

IMPORT DUTIES (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the count of insured persons as at 1st July last is now completed; and, if so, the total number of persons actually at work on that date in the following industries: motor car, silk, lace and musical instruments and, for comparison, the corresponding total on 1st July, 1926 and 1927?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

able to causes beyond our control, many of which are of world-wide operation. The Government will, however, continue to afford to the industry such assistance from time to time as is reasonable and practicable, having regard to the present financial stringency.

Mr. BUXTON: Can the Prime Minister say whether the White Paper of 1926 is still a complete statement of the Government's intentions with regard to agriculture?

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall have to refresh my mind before I can answer that question.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

STAFF.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the last issued quarterly return, giving the number of persons employed in Government Departments, shows an increase of 3,390 within three months; whether he will consider the question of imposing limits to staff extensions; and whether he will undertake not to introduce legislation necessitating increased expenditure upon salaries?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): My hon. Friend is no doubt referring to the increase in the staff of Government Departments at 1st July last, as compared with 1st April last. That increase is accounted for by the growth of postal and telephone work, by increase of work in connection with the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and by temporary increases due to seasonal pressure. The return of the staffs of Government Departments as at 1st October last, which is now available shows a reduction, as compared with 1st July, 1927, of 933, notwithstanding a further increase of 376 due to the continued growth of postal work. The quarterly returns for 1st July and 1st October, 1927, show substantial reductions as compared with the corresponding figures for 1926, notwithstanding increases of 2,749 and 2,684, respectively, in the staff of the Post Office. With regard to the latter part of the question, it is the intention of the Government, as my right hon. Friend indicated in his Budget Speech, to effect a marked contraction in the number of new entrants to the Civil Service during the remaining years of this Parliament. The Government cannot, however, go so far as to undertake that in no circumstances will they introduce legislation that may have the effect of increasing expenditure on staffs.

CLAIMS AND RECORDS OFFICE, KEW (DISCHARGES).

Mr. KELLY: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that 163 men are being discharged from the Claims and Records Offie at Kew; that most of these men are married with families, and have been employed in the
service seven or more years; will he state the reason for discharging so many men at a time when unemployment figures are rising; whether he is aware that employés in other Departments are working overtime; and whether he will give careful consideration to the possibility of withdrawing the notices or having the men in question transferred to other Departments where overtime is being worked?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: With regard to this question generally, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on the same subject on the 10th November and 14th November to the hon. Members for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne). With regard to the last two parts of the question, I have no authority to intervene in the organisation of other Departments; but I can assure the hon. Member that the Joint Substitution Board for the Civil Service is taking all possible steps to secure the re-employment of these men in suitable vacancies.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the fact that in his own Department much overtime is worked, and in view of the fact that he is unable to give the information asked for in some of the questions put to him, cannot the right hon. Gentleman employ these people in helping him?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot do more than I am doing at the present moment. I have done and am doing the utmost I can as the vacancies are created. Of course, I have to have regard to any work that can properly be done for me.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Is not a great amount of work being done at Acton?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not that I am aware of.

SHIPYARD WORKERS (WAGES).

Mr. STEPHEN: 67.
asked the Minister of Labour the average rate of increase of wages of shipyard labourers and craftsmen between 1914 and 1927?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Ministry of Labour Gazette for October, on page 369 of which appears a summary of the information available on this matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us what business it is proposed to take on the remaining days this week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Tomorrow, completion of Report and Third Beading of the Cinematograph Films Bill and Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Friday, Third Beading of the Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill; Committee of the Public Works Loans (No. 2) Bill; and, if time permit, other orders on the Paper.

MESSAGE FROM THE LOBDS.

Law of Libel Amendment Bill [Lords],—That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider the Law of Libel Amendment Bill [Lords] do meet in Committee Boom C on Wednesday 23rd November, at half-past Eleven o'clock.

Lords Message considered.

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

CBIMINAL APPEAL (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to amend the provisions of the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act, 1926, with regard to the power of the Secretary of State to refer a case or any point arising therein to the High Court of Justiciary," presented by Secretary Sir JOHN GILMOUR; supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland and Major Elliot; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 202.]

RUBBER INDUSTRY.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the collection of a contribution by rubber manufacturers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the funds
of the research association of British rubber and tyre manufacturers; and for other purposes connected therewith.
I have been asked to bring in this Bill, I presume, because I am supposed to know a little about rubber. Immediately on being asked to do so, I made it my duty to inspect the balance sheets of the Rubber Research Association, and to inspect their works at Croydon, to the best of my ability. I have come to the conclusion that this Bill will serve a very useful purpose. You, Mr. Speaker, and other Members of the House have heard me advocate on many occasions the necessity for research, and therefore I was pleased when I was asked to bring in a Bill of this description, by which rubber research will be in the hands of and paid for entirely by those interested in rubber, instead of being financed by the Government, as has been the case hitherto to a certain extent. When this Research Association was started in 1920 it was subsidised to the extent of 50–50 by the Government. In 1925 it got a block grant of £2,000, the grant diminishing by £400 each year, so that in 1929 the Research Association will be entirely without any Government grant whatsoever. The grant is paid from the sum of £1,000,000 allotted to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The rest of the money was found by voluntary subscriptions.
The idea of the Department in giving this subsidy is to enable a research association—this or any other research association—to get on its legs and then run by itself, and, in short, the object of this Bill is to achieve this. As I have said, the Government grant will expire in 1929, and the Research Association is very anxious to have established itself on a firm financial basis and to have procured a steady annual income by that time. At the present moment, a good deal of the income of the Research Association goes on propaganda to obtain new members for the Research Association. If this Bill be agreed to, the funds can be spent on research, and on that only, and that is all to the good. Dr. Young, a high official of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, reporting on this question, said:
It is necessary to have a Central Intelligence Organisation.
The scientific assessors said that there was a lack of good senior staff. This was owing to lack of funds. It is also absolutely necessary that they should have a first-class library and a first-class librarian. The chairman of the Library Information Bureau Committee writes that:
unless some systematic record be kept much of the time spent in skimming the weekly periodicals and reading occasional articles and scientific papers will have been wasted.
The cost is taxed at £15,000, which will all go on research. This will be collected by a collection on the basis of 1–25th of a penny per pound weight on all the raw rubber retained for use in Great Britain. The estimated annual consumption of rubber in this country is 40,000 tons, and, if all the rubber retained for use pays a contribution, the individual sums paid will not be at all excessive. The Bill is based—this is very important because there are those in the House who do not exactly understand what it all means—on the Cotton Industry Act of 1923, which provides for the maintenance of the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation which has proved very satisfactory. There are several of my backers who are cotton men, and they have willingly put their names to this Bill. This Measure is supported by 85 per cent, of the total capital engaged. In other words, out of £50,000,000 capital those representing no less than £44,000,000 have agreed to this Measure. As far as I have been able to ascertain, I only know of two large firms who do not agree with this Bill in principle, although they make use of the Research Association. The Bill is limited to five years, and to an average contribution of £15,000. In this connection, we have to deal with keen competition from America, Germany and the rest of the Continent, and to my mind it is absolutely essential that the whole of the rubber industry—research in rubber is still in its infancy—should support this association, and enable them to have this Bill by which they can collect these contributions and spend all the money on research.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Campbell, Mr. Sidney Webb, Sir Hilton Young, Mr. William Graham, Mr. A. V. Alexander, Sir Robert Hamilton, Sir Sydney Henn, Viscount Sandon, Sir
Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Oliver Stanley, Mr. Wardlaw-Milne, and Mr. Wiggins.

RUBBER INDUSTRY BILL,

"to provide for the collection of a contribution by rubber manufacturers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the funds of the research association of British rubber and tyre manufacturers; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I beg to move.
That this House regrets that the growing difficulties in the coal industry and the increasing distress and unemployment amongst the miners have been neglected by the Government, upon whom, particularly after its actions of last year, a special responsibility rests; and calls for immediate action to secure an efficient organisation of the industry and of the sale and use of its products; and to deal with the embarrassing condition of local relief authorities, the recruitment of labour, and the treatment of the vast number of miners on short time and out of work.
I think there will be no division of opinion on any side of the House that the coal industry is in a very critical and a most unhappy position, nor can there be any division of opinion that the coal industry cannot be dissociated or isolated from our general national industries. I do not think there will be any division of opinion on this much more serious statement that the coal industry to-day is passing through a transforma-which requires careful consideration and handling, not only by those who have money invested in it, not only by those whose labour is employed in it, but by the Government itself.
The days when people used to talk about industry being dissociated from politics are as dead as Queen Anne. What we raise by this Resolution is the coal situation, but if this Government and this House imagine that you can discuss the coal situation and deal with it by a Departmental reply, that shows once again how utterly incompetent the Government are either to understand or handle this problem. I have been told to-day that the Government reply is going to declare that its only conception of the coal situation is the Board of Trade conception. We are going to raise issues to-day which are not Board of Trade issues at all. Nobody knows better than the Prime Minister that he never can answer our attack unless he answers it himself as a representative of his Cabinet and his Government. The country is a spectator of all this. My first point is that in the arrangement that has been made by the Government
for the Debate to-day the nation has once more got a demonstration of how blind the Government are to the problems with which they have to deal.
4.0. p.m.
The present situation has not arisen since last year or since the dispute of 1925. The present situation has been heralded through a goodly number of years by a procession of worrying events, one after another coming up rank upon rank, which every man with eyes to see and a mind to comprehend, must have understood. Last year the Government took a certain view at the end of that procession, and at the time when the procession showed itself to be critical. The Government view was this: "Accept lower wages, accept longer hours, and we will guarantee a better condition of the industry." The other day I was reading a speech delivered by a representative of the owners' association. It showed that that is the frame of mind of the owners officially even now. We were told miners' wages must still come down, and, not only that, but that the wages of outsiders who co-operate in the handling of the coal, in the haulage of the coal, and in the transport of the coal must also come down. In fact, what this nation is up against is that there is on the part of very important people, very powerful people organised in this country, a view that you can make national industry flourish upon sweated conditions. Last year we fought the Government upon this and we said: "You are making a mistake. When you get wages down, you have to improve the condition of the industry." You have got the wages down and there is this Debate to-day, and there is not a single fact that any of my hon. Friends behind me can bring forward in this Debate up to eleven o'clock to-night that is new to 1927. Everyone of them was brought before the House and the Prime Minister last year was asked to consider them seriously in an economic setting and not in a political aspect and he refused to do so. To-day you have production increased. To-day you have overhead charges reduced. To-day we are producing coal at less cost per ton than we did last year. To-day our coal is selling in foreign markets at shillings per ton more than it did last year. To-day British coal is being sold in Berlin, not at 6d. less than German coal, not at a
penny or two less than the foreign producer can sell his coal, but I am informed by one whose word I take that when he was in Berlin the' other day he found English coal was being sold at four shillings per ton less than its nearest competitors.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the name of his informant?

Mr. MacDONALD: If there be any doubt about it, I hold in my band an extract from the "South Wales Journal of Commerce," which is pre-eminently a mineowners' journal. It says in a leading article:
The fact that the much lower price of British coal has not brought salvation to the trade is sufficient proof that factors other than that of cost of production are responsible for the present depression of industry.
It goes on to say:
It is quite true that the costs of production are comparatively high, but so also are the costs of production in every other country relatively to those ruling in pre-War years, and in so far as labour costs are concerned the figures for this country are more favourable than those of either Germany or the United States. In the States the labour cost is probably to-day at least double what it was in pre-War years. In the Ruhr, according to the latest return of the Westphalian Syndicate, it is at least 40 per cent, more than it was in 1913, whereas in South Wales the last audited return showed an increase over the pre-War level of some 30 per cent.
Those are the facts. The Government policy of last year has absolutely failed. They did one thing. We all remember that they asked this House to pass a Mining Industry Bill for eight hours. That was their compensation for standing alongside of the owners and behind the owners in forcing a certain industrial issue to a certain result. What have they done? A question was put to the Minister of Mines the other day as to what effect this Mining Industry Bill had had. The Minister replied, "It is not time to reply." Should I go very far wrong, should I be exaggerating very much if I suggested that the reason he gave that answer was that he had nothing whatever to say.
But there is more than that. The Prime Minister himself in asking this House to accept certain proposals he was then making, made a statement—I have
had it looked up again, lest my recollection or impression betrayed me—which gave us to understand that he had come to a bargain. Here are his words:
I have received positive assurances from the owners that on the basis of an eight hours' day"—
Then he corrected himself:
I have not received them myself but one or two of my colleagues received them before I would consent to introduce this change which I am advocating this afternoon—there are certain districts, producing approximately half the output of the country, in which the men will be offered a continuance of their existing wages for July, August and September and that over more than half of the rest of the country the reduction asked, if one is asked at all, will be something materially less than the 10 per cent, drop that the offer already made by the owners on the eight hour basis contemplated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1926; col. 2148, Vol. 196.]
In moving the Third Reading the First Lord of the Admiralty held out to us the prospect, that the operation of the Bill would certainly, if accepted, either reduce unemployment or produce very much less unemployment than any of the other alternatives. Are the Government going to tell us to-day that when they took the action they did last year, both administrative and legislative, they had not persuaded themselves on having received assurances from the owners that lower wages and longer hours were going to relieve the industry of the strain it had to bear then? If they did not, I leave it to the reflection of the country. If they did, I want them to tell us to-day what they are going to do in order to undo their own mistakes of last year. We have had in recent days renewals of a faith in optimism. I am an optimist, but I am not a lotus eating optimist, and the mere declaration of optimism under conditions such as those under which we are to-day is doing the country's energy, the country's heart and the country's will very serious damage indeed.
I ask the Government what is the position. First of all, production. The figures show that, if production can be abstracted from everything else, if the problem of production is solved the moment you can announce certain figures of tons having been sent up from the bottom of the pit to the top of the pit, that problem has been solved, because production merely on figures is not so bad. But everyone knows that solves
nothing at all. First of all, the great problem in coal now is the transference of coal into power, and this country is seriously behind the Continent in experiments in that direction. The question of how coal is to be transformed into oil and into certain other valuable by-products essential to the continuance of national prosperity is not a matter for individual enterprise, is not a matter for simply those who are making profits in coal getting. It is a matter to which no Government who understand the duties of a modern Government can close their eyes and blind themselves. What are the Government doing in relation to this? What interest are they taking in all these scientific experiments and explorations directed to discovering how these black lumps of fossilised vegetable can be translated into power? That is the first thing that must be settled in connection with the coal problem to-day.
The next point is: When the coal is produced, how is it going to be disposed of as coal? We are told a great deal about the competition the British coal-owner has to meet in the market, and by a kind of sleight of hand trick that competition is palmed off as though it were a competition between foreign countries and ourselves. It is nothing of the kind. The figures I gave regarding Berlin show, as a matter of fact, that the competition from which we are suffering is competition between British owners themselves trying to get to the same markets. It is not the competition of the Ruhr versus South Wales; it is the competition of South Wales exporter versus South Wales exporter, and while that competition is going on every advance in production, every reduction in the cost of production is going not to benefit industrial capital, not to benefit labour. It is not going to be controlled and managed as a pool of advantage in which the great producing elements in the country are to share. It is simply going to be used as a pool of advantage which will enable English capitalist or exporter A to cut down his prices against English exporter or capitalist B. The result is that the lower the wages, the longer the hours, the greater the production; there is absolutely no benefit that is going to accrue to the miner or improvement of the social conditions of the trade.
We found that when the Government gave the subsidy. It was simply squandered in internal competition. Hardly a penny of it was paid for the purpose of building up the industry so as to make it stronger to resist the competition it had to meet, and so it is to-day. The Government gave the subsidy, and they permitted the owners to reduce wages and gave them the eight hours' day, and precisely the same economic and industrial result has followed from the second blunder as followed from the first. The owners themselves are beginning to see that, and they are talking now about forming syndicates and cartels, and all that sort of coordinated selling activity. Here, again, the Government responsibility comes in. The Government know perfectly well that if they allow these syndicates to be formed without any sort of social and commonweal control, it is only putting the whole of that industry in the hands of the economic power to use the industry as it likes itself. That is an impossible position for a Government to take up. Industrial efficiency, selling efficiency is all very well, but if that selling efficiency simply means more power for the combined wills of a few individuals to put coal on the home market at any price they like, to put coal on the foreign markets at any price they like, and to have the Government in their pocket as far as hours of labour are concerned, then let us speak in plain terms. That is a system of industrial slavery. In fact, if there be any variance in that interpretation of what is going on it belongs to a dead generation.
There are two questions relating to production—the use of the materials produced and the organisation for selling and marketing materials, and in neither department can a Government of this country in 1927 refuse to take an active and a serious interest, and we want to know from the Government what they are doing in this respect. Then we come to the other point which to-day, of course, is the most serious, because it is the most dramatic. Yet I am bound to say that to-day that which is most dramatic is not always that which goes down to the positive root of affairs. The most dramatic thing to-day is, of course, the condition of the miner and his family. The right hon. Gentleman spoke last year
about a 10 per cent. reduction. How blessed scores and thousands of our people in these islands today would be if that reduction were 10 per cent. The fact of the matter is—I can only give it as I was told by decent, truthful women who have to spend the money and to produce results from Sunday morning to Saturday night—that in great parts of our country to-day while we hear talk about averages and basic prices, and all that sort of thing, that is not what happens to the pocket and the purse of the working miner. I have cases given me where for a run of weeks the net wage was 25s. It is very common to have net wages varying from. 25s. to 30s. a week. I have a letter which came for me since I arrived in the House this afternoon—I happen to know, I think, the writer. I do not say it is an average; I do not want to exaggerate the case at all, because a case stated in the most minimum way is the strongest case in the matter we are raising now. The writer says:
I should like to ask certain Members what their wives would do with 6s. 5d. for a wife and family to live on. I have not averaged £1 a week since April. Our wives and children are destitute, with nothing to look forward to but drudgery and misery. We are trying to exist on, as we cannot live. I know two cases who have committed suicide during this last fortnight through low wages and getting into debt and no signs of getting out. I am cutting my name off the checks, as I know what they would do if they found me out.
With that letter the writer enclosed two checks. The first shows a gross wage of 15s. 4d. for the week.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: A shift.

Mr. MacDONALD: The hon. Member does not live on shifts. He lives on half-crowns, or pounds or five-pound notes. If there is no shift, that is one of the tragedies. If the hon. Member has discovered any other way of living, I would like very much if he would communicate it to me, because I should benefit very much from it. If I have no order for my work, at the end of the week when I have to make my income, it means that at the end of the month when the cheques come in, I am short of cheques, and have to do without necessities. Shifts or no shifts, there is his pay-sheet and his week's wage. On his pay-sheet is 15s. 4d. He did not pocket that, however. He has various deductions—they are all in front
of me—and all the money he pocketed to enable his wife and children to live decently was not 15s. 4d., but 13s., after deductions were made. That is the first sheet. It was dated the end of last month. The second one is dated this month. In this case the gross wage obtained is 8s. 9d. and the net wage paid, the actual money handed over, is 6s. 5d. I am not saying that is an average—not at all. It is not. I am simply saying that in the ordinary operation of your industry—and I give my own experience in the last three or four weeks—you will hardly go through a single mining village, I do not care whether it is South Wales, Durham, Northumberland, without getting cases like these.
Then as to unemployment. The figures were given again to-day, and I will not take up the time of the House by repeating them. But on that we have got to remember three things. First, the actual figures as registered, and, secondly, the figures of short time, like these. These were short time checks. But there is more than that, and this is really where the Government must exercise some forethought. This is what is going to happen. I have heard, since the beginning of this week, of a pit employing, when it is fully working, 1,200 men, or thereabouts, and another pit, also when fully employed employing something like 1,800 men, where notices have been posted or are about to be posted that both pits will have to be closed. Therefore, the Government in considering the whole situation must not merely consider the figures that are registered; they must consider the figures that are going to be registered. They must anticipate, because all these movements and figures are absolutely meaningless unless this meaning is attached to them. The whole of the industry is in a state of flux and readjustment, and it must emerge at the end somewhat different in its organisation and proportions from what it was before the War.
Therefore, in dealing with the coal industry to-day, the Government have to deal with the question of the adjustment of population to new industrial conditions. We have been hammering at this for a long time. The other day, in the Debate on the Insurance Bill, my hon. Friend, who replied for the Ministry, produced a book which I wrote, I think, somewhere about 1912. I am awfully
glad that these books are read with such study and consideration in Government Departments. I wish I was more convinced of the sound effect of the reading of the ideas, but I stand by that. Given industry as a going concern, there are two risks, first of all, the risk of fluctuation, and, secondly, the risk of very temporary dislocation like a coal-shaft geting into disrepair. But given industry under these conditions, you can insure for unemployment, because the thing you are insuring is something to which you can give a mathematical meaning.
That is not your problem at all to-day. That is only a little bit of your problem. The problem to-day is that a great crowd of people is being recruited and amplified from both ends, which is not unemployed in that sense at all, but is out of industry. You are giving very old men—you get them in hundreds in these mining districts—who have been in industry and are insured. They never will be in industry again. They are not yet ready for old age pensions. The right hon. Gentleman can bring down his age for old age pensions as low as the finances of the country will allow him, and yet those people are not touched by this beneficence. What are you going to do about them? You cannot make them a burden upon insurance funds which were intended, not to meet those people's needs and circumstances, but a totally different industrial risk carefully valued out. Then, from the other side, you are having a still more ominous crowd of young people, boys and girls, who have never been in industry at all, who will never be insured, and will never put themselves in the position of being insured persons as industrial workers.
What are you to do about them? You have that standpoint illustrated very tragically indeed in the present coal situation. You go to the mining villages now, and you will see. I will give a little illustration of a pit that before it was closed was employing round about 900 or 950 men. That was the standard of employment. It is now employing 250. Men go there day after day religiously, although they know it is all humbug and a farce, lest there should be a vacancy—it might be due to an accident in the pit—of some kind or other, and ask for a chance of being taken on and are turned away. If they live for the next
20 years, that is going to be their experience. On the other hand, you go to your recreation grounds, those small places cut out from the sides of the mountain. I have an actual case in point. I see it in front of me as I address this House. This little ground, cut out from the side of the mountain, is full, at the middle of the day, of young people who have passed the school age, young people who normally would have been down the pit assisting their fathers and being taught the art and mystery of coalmining. They were not in the pit, and were without the ghost of a chance of ever going down the pit with tools to enable them to become coalminers. Right hon. Members sit calmly and wait until the laws of God operate, because they cannot devise laws of man to meet the circumstances of the situation. That crowd of uninsurable persons is a national concern. It is not a local concern; it is a national concern.
We want to know what the Government are doing in order to fulfil their responsibility to unemployed miners. What they are doing now is this. They are knocking many off the insurance, and are considering a Bill which will systematically drive men on to the Poor Law. Then the right hon. Gentleman comes along—from a strict red tape position, I do not quite know that he would challenge it very much—and says, "Oh, the Poor Law is not meant to be for you." Of course, it was not meant to be. The only thing we object to is that he finishes his song in the middle of the tune. What was meant for you? We say that the Government's policy in this respect is a most disastrous policy. Knock them off the insurance fund! Put them on the Poor Law! Then put a sieve on to the Poor Law; sift them out of the Poor Law, and what beggary and destitution! The Government sit and look on, and makes speeches, sympathetic and optimistic, but keep their hands in their pockets. The opportunity that they had last year to settle this as a quid pro quo was lost. We are now in the same position as we were then, and we ask the Government: What are they going to do? The Government cannot go on merely relieving the unemployment insurance fund. They cannot go on merely relieving the rates. They must produce a positive policy. A policy that remains
negative is bad, but a negative policy has a most positive effect upon the revival of industry.
It is all very well to publish White Papers about Bedwellty. Bedwellty might be the greatest sinner that local government has in this country. What has happened? Owing to the way in which our rates are levied, the very districts that are hardest hit now are having the heaviest burdens imposed upon them. I think it is a very open question—the Colwyn Committee came as near to the truth as any Committee ever came—that direct taxation has a much less evil influence upon industry than a great many people imagine; but a higher rate has a direct, a specific, and an unescapable evil effect upon industry. They go to Bedwellty, they go to Chester-le-Street, and they say to the miner, "Off insurance."
The board of guardians are upset. The board of guardians give the relief. The board of guardians refuse to give relief that is neither one thing nor the other. The board of guardians feel that, if it is going to be relief at all, it ought to be a satisfactory relief. But we know perfectly well that if that policy is continued up will go the rates, and, if rates go up and trade is bad, the property paying the rates goes down in value, and the basis of rateable value is reduced. Therefore, the cost of unemployment and bad trade gets steadily shifted off the big properties on to the small properties, when the big properties are doing their level best to throw off these titanic powers of bad trade that seem to be fixed upon them and trying to reduce their cost of production and trying to conduct industry efficiently. In the very worst places those big industrial concerns are crushed down by the evil effect of the bad trade through which we are passing. Can any economic and industrial policy be more insane than that, which is the policy the Government are pursuing?
The Exchequer has to come to the aid of local government, but we want to know what the Government are doing. What are they proposing to do? With all due respect, the President of the Board of Trade is not the Minister who can answer this question. From another point of view, everybody with some sort of strength of mind and determination who faces this problem will see that it is essential that there should be a very close and a very intimate exchange of opinion
between the owners and the men. The Government this year were terribly moved in their hearts and souls—I am sorry not only because of the reason why I was not here, but because of the pleasure I should have had in sitting here to hear that this moral exercise was being pursued by the Government—because one workman coerced and boycotted another workman. That is so contrary to British tradition that this Government produced a Bill to make it impossible for a trade unionist who did subscribe to political funds to boycott one who did not. If the Government's principle was sound, it was also equally sound regarding employer and workman.
What is going on in the coalfields to-day—in Durham, Northumberland? In South Wales—I aim speaking now not from correspondence and from what I have read—you get employers who say, "You belong to the Labour party?" "Yes." "You were an official in the lodge, were you not?" That is the Miners' Union. "Yes." "Well, you can come here for the next quarter of a century, but there is no work for you." A man, a leader of his chapel, a man who has been employed for years and years in the pit, a man whom I am perfectly willing to confess when we got into trouble with what we call extremists and all those blithering people, we used as a good, straight, level-headed man to keep his men firm and to make them proof against all the silly blithering nonsense to-day, is out of employment. He cannot get in. He will not get in. I ask the Prime Minister, does he still believe in all this boycotting sentiment that produced, at any rate, certain Clauses of his Bill of this year? If he does, what has he to say to that? There is a miners' official whom I have known a great many years and who is known to hon. Members on all sides of the House—Mr. Straker, the secretary of the Northumberland Miners' Union. Everybody knows Mr. Straker. Everybody knows that he is a quiet, reasonable—I was almost going to say godly—clean man. Mr. Straker wrote in his circular the month before last a statement which really ought to move this House, and which would certainly move the Government if they had any meaning in nine-tenths of the speeches they deliver. This is what Mr. Straker says:
If I speak strongly regarding this matter it is because I feel strongly. At some
of our pits—exceptions, I am glad to say—colliery officials in both high and low places are treating the workmen under them in such a tyrannical way that all co-operation between them and their workmen is simply impossible. If I had been told only two years ago that such a reign of blind tyranny could have existed at any of the coal mines of Northumberland, I would have refused to believe it.
Co-operation, consultation between employers and men is absolutely essential, and it is being prevented, and the Government gave the owners the power which enables them to do these things. I have seen the condition of certain sections of people in South Wales. I have seen the process of human deterioration. I have seen marvels of bravery in the capacity of the women, which made me feel a prouder man than ever I have felt in my life that these mothers were precisely of the same stock as our own mothers. I have talked to them and I have seen them staring, as it were, into the blank outlook ahead. Families who have been careful have mortgages upon their houses and are being compelled to surrender. They are coming nearer and nearer to the day when the surrender must take place. There are public utility societies going bankrupt. Families have tried to pay, but the vast majority cannot pay. One co-operative society, I am told, has closed its doors. Shopkeepers do not know what to do. They are beginning to be impatient with this House. They are beginning to become impatient with political matters. They are beginning to wonder whether, after all, there is not some swifter and more decisive method. They are living, as I have said, under a reign of terror in some places, and certainly under a reign of boycott.
As far as I am concerned and as far as my friends are concerned we are still in favour of the political method as the only effective method of bringing about changes, economic or constitutional, in this country; but one despairs when one sees men, as I saw them the other day, trudging down from the top of a valley, compelled by the rules of the Labour Department to walk 2½ miles down the valley and the same distance back again, making five miles in all, in order to register their names to qualify for unemployment benefit, with the rain pouring in torrents. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour must understand
and the Government must understand and it would be well for the country to understand these things. If it was that alone, one might get impatient with complaints. Hon. Members must use their imagination and try to visualise what has happened in all these months. These men have had small wages; then there comes the boycotting experience, the men find themselves out of work, they suffer; some of them have been out of work for a year, some out of work for three years, and now they have to turn out in the mornings and trudge up and down that mountain road, five miles, in order to register for unemployment benefit. One can understand the feelings that are growing in the minds of a great many of these men. I am sorry. It is a Government affair; it is not a Departmental affair. There is no Department that can handle this situation. It is a question of Government policy. It is a Cabinet policy that is required, and I appeal to the House, irrespective of party, to make up its mind to mobilise its credit, to mobilise its conscience, to mobilise its intellectual capacity in order to put this industry on a satisfactory and efficient footing.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Mr. Speaker—

HON. MEMBERS: Prime Minister!

Mr. SPEAKER: I assume that the hon. Members on my left desire to have the Motion debated.

Mr. SUTTON: Yes, but we want the responsible Minister.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Prime Minister!

Mr. SPEAKER: There can be no Debate if one side or the other tries to impose their conditions.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. I want to put it to you: Are we not acting perfectly Parliamentarily in our method of procedure?

Mr. SPEAKER: I was trying to discover if hon. Members wish their Motion to be discussed.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not according to precedent what we are doing here today? Are we not acting perfectly Parliamentarily?

Mr. SPEAKER: If hon. Members wish me to adjourn the House, that will suit me very well.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Prime Minister!

Mr. KIRKWOOD: This is not a boy's job. This is a man's job.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion which has been moved deals with a very serious matter, a matter which the House wishes to hear discussed, but, as I said before, if I am compelled to adjourn the House it will suit me quite well.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: If the miners' representatives do not desire to have the matter discussed in the House, I beg to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. SPEAKER: withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Shall I be in order in moving, "That the President of the Board of Trade be not heard"?

Mr. SPEAKER: That would not be in order.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Is not the Prime Minister mainly responsible? We want him to answer the case.

Mr. SPEAKER: That was the view put by the Leader of the Opposition, and hon. Members are entitled to their view, but I called upon the President of the Board of Trade, who rose in his place. The President of the Board of Trade.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Prime Minister!

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is not the case that our Motion is an arraignment of the policy of the Government and not an arraignment of the policy of the Board of Trade? If I am correct in so describing our Motion, is it not perfectly reasonable for hon. Members on this side of the House to ask the head of the Government to reply?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Government are always supposed to be one and indivisible.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish emphatically to protest. The Leader of the Opposition has impeached the Government on a very serious matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—which the country is up against, and we ask the Prime Minister to reply. We will not—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech. If this disorder persists, I shall immediately adjourn the House. I call upon the President of the Board of Trade.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Prime Minister!

Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. Is it not the custom of this House that when a Vote of Censure is moved against the Government, it is replied to in the first instance by the Prime Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not aware of such a custom.

Mr. MITCHELL BANKS: Is there not a great difference in the procedure of this House between disorderly interruptions on the one hand and the well-known cry of " 'Vide, 'vide"?

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that during the debate on Chinese slavery the Liberal party howled down the late Mr. Alfred Lyttelton, because they wanted the Prime Minister to answer? The Prime Minister has been impeached to-day, and he is putting up the President of the Board of Trade, a man who knows nothing whatever about it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I believe I was present on that occasion on one of the benches, and my recollection is that the disorder which then took place did not achieve the purpose designed.

Mr. LAWSON: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that during the last two or three mining debates the situation has been handled very badly. The Government have made a regular policy of putting up a Departmental representative, but there are forty men on this side of the House who come from famine areas—

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech now. The President of the Board of Trade.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Prime Minister!

Mr. SPEAKER: In view of the continued disorder, I now suspend the Sitting until Six o'Clock.

Sitting suspended accordingly at two-minutes after Five o'Clock.

Mr. SPEAKER: resumed the Chair at Six of the Clock.

Mr. SPEAKER: The President of the Board of Trade.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Prime Minister!

Mr. THOMAS: On a point of Order. I should like to ask whether in your recollection, Mr. Speaker, there is any precedent for a Vote of Censure being moved in the name of the Opposition, by the Leader of the Opposition, and for the Prime Minister of the day, when present and in a position to take part in the Debate, to refuse to do so?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a matter of order for the Chair. I have not looked up precedents, but I think I can recollect other occasions.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Prime Minister!

Mr. THOMAS: While it may not be a matter of order, it is a matter that affects the whole position of the House of which you, Sir, are guardian. We have endeavoured to find a precedent, we have failed to do so, and I submit to you, very respectfully, that the Motion is a censure on the Government as a whole, and that that Motion, moved by the Leader of the Opposition, indicted the Government, exploring the whole field. The Minister who is called upon to reply—he will quite understand that I make no personal reference—I understand on his own previous request, but certainly on the instruction of the Government, when the difficulties that we are dealing with to-day were a subject of debate last Session—the Minister who is replying to-day was prohibited from taking part.

Mr. SPEAKER: That really is not a point of Order.

Sir W. DAVISON: On a point of Order—

HON. MEMBERS: Sit down!

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Prime Minister!

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members to be good enough to allow the Debate to proceed.

Sir W. DAVISON: On a point of Order. Arising out of what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, is there any precedent in the history of the House, when the Government have been asked to give a day for the discussion of a matter of interest to the Opposition, for the Opposition to dictate the order of the speeches to the Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: That, again, is not a matter of order for the Chair. I have called upon the President of the Board of Trade.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Prime Minister!

Mr. PALING: Further to that point of Order—

Mr. SPEAKER: I have ruled that there is no point of Order. The President of the Board of Trade.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: We want Baldwin!

Mr. MacLAREN: On a point of Order—

Mr. SPEAKER: There cannot be a point of Order. As hon. Members apparently do not wish the Debate to proceed, under the powers of the Standing Order I adjourn the House.

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Six o'Clock.